Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
Jay wrote:
> Possibly, but at the same time an irrational abandonment of consideration
> of scarcity leads to ridiculous allocations like the handful of /19 and /20s
> given early on in the process. Those allocations in turn then leads to friction
> with those who now won't get such huge blocks and so feel that once again
> they've been shut out of the developed world club.
Looking at the statistics published by APNIC I can see a good dusting or /26 and larger allocations over the last 18 months:
apnic|CN|ipv6|2408:8000::|22|20110707|allocated
apnic|CN|ipv6|2409:8000::|20|20110823|allocated
apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:100::|24|20111214|allocated
apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:200::|23|20111214|allocated
apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:400::|22|20111214|allocated
apnic|CN|ipv6|240e:800::|21|20111214|allocated
apnic|IN|ipv6|2402:ef00::|26|20120120|allocated
There are also a fair number of /31-/27 sized allocations.
It looks like you can still get a big block of IPv6 address space. You probably just need a big network to justify the allocation.
Regards,
Leo